Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

They look at Duncan, KG, Kobe, Kidd, Nash, Shaq and Dirk with their MVPs and/or rings and think of what an accomplished group it is. Meanwhile, Howard, Paul, Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Irving, Davis, Griffin, Love, Williams, Melo, Wall, and others (especially Rubio) could still get to that level of accomplishment.

What do people think Rubio's ceiling is these days? I have barely watched him this season, other than the occasional staggering pass highlight, but his shooting numbers look terrible, which IIRC was the big concern about him coming over. What are the chances he ends up a stud, and how do they compare to the chances he never really puts it together?

What do people think Rubio's ceiling is these days? I have barely watched him this season, other than the occasional staggering pass highlight, but his shooting numbers look terrible, which IIRC was the big concern about him coming over. What are the chances he ends up a stud, and how do they compare to the chances he never really puts it together?

I posted about him on the last page. His shooting numbers this year are dragged down by the first games he played when he was far from his normal self. Since the minutes restriction was lifted, he's about 42-43% from the field, which I think is an acceptable level for him. He's also averaging almost 9 assists and under 3 turnovers. I do not think he is all the way back yet because his defense remains below his standard, but his midrange shot is improved and he appears to be finishing much better at the rim over the last couple of weeks (he has developed that quick release layup to get under shotblockers that Parker uses and has gone to the reverse more often). I doubt he will ever be a huge superstar, but if he keeps playing how he has over the last 10 games and increases his minutes next year, we're looking at 15-10 with good defense. That's a borderline All-Star in most eras, even if he's stuck behind Westbrook, Paul, Parker (and maybe Lillard, Curry, Lawson) in a stacked conference.

IIRC a lot of people here vouch for The Basketball Jones podcast, but the few times I've listened to it they always say a few too many monumentally...puzzling...things. One of the guys is making a J.R. Smith All-Star/6th Man case in today's podcast...

JORDAN PLAYS his new favorite trivia game, asking which current players could be nearly as successful in his era. "Our era," he says over and over again, calling modern players soft, coddled and ill-prepared for the highest level of the game. This is personal to him, since he'll be compared to this generation, and since he has to build a franchise with this generation's players.

"I'll give you a hint," he says. "I can only come up with four."

He lists them: LeBron, Kobe, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki...
When someone on TV compares LeBron to Oscar Robertson, Jordan fumes. He rolls his eyes, stretches his neck, frustrated. "It's absolutely … " he says, catching himself. "The point is, no one is critiquing the personnel that he's playing against. Their knowledge of how to play the game … that's not a fair comparison. That's not right … Could LeBron be successful in our era? Yes. Would he be as successful? No."

"I study him," he says.

When LeBron goes right, he usually drives; when he goes left, he usually shoots a jumper. It has to do with his mechanics and how he loads the ball for release. "So if I have to guard him," Jordan says, "I'm gonna push him left so nine times out of 10, he's gonna shoot a jump shot. If he goes right, he's going to the hole and I can't stop him. So I ain't letting him go right."

For the rest of the game, when LeBron gets the ball and starts his move, Jordan will call out some variation of "drive" or "shoot." It's not just LeBron. He sees fouls the officials miss, and the replays prove him right. When someone shoots, he knows immediately whether it's going in. He calls out what guys are going to do before they do it, more plugged into the flow of the game than some of the players on the court. He's answering texts, buried in his phone, when the play-by-play guy announces a LeBron jump shot. Without looking up, Jordan says, "Left?"

Jordan's awesome, but he's wishcasting there. Players are significantly tougher now due to the emphasis on defense and the expansion of the talent pool. Look at the highlights from Jordan's early career and all the white stiffs with moustaches he's dunking over. Those guys are all gone now, or playing 6 minutes a game in garbage time. LeBron in a faster-paced, all offense/little defense fastbreak 80s setting? He would have killed people. Or in the 90s, when there were only a handful of true offensive stars and the game started to favor big guys who were bulked up? Likewise. LeBron would be a superstar in any era, as would Jordan, as would Kobe, as would all the major major talents.

@611 -- that's true, but the flip side is that the paint was often packed with a a couple of those "white stiffs" whose job it was to stand near the basket and be tall. With the advent of the "stretch 4" and the "euro style" there is more spacing in the modern game then when Jordan played. Furthermore, those "white stiffs" were often told to take hard fouls and enforce the "no fly zone" with Jordan and others.

I think that it's basically a wash. Whatever advantages Lebron has with the modern spacing and lack of physicality are offset by the talent of the perimeter defenders he goes against on a nightly basis. Any advantage Jordan had by playing against a weaker talent pool is offset by the fact that that pool was more singularly dedicated (and had less rules to abide by wrt to physicality) to stopping him and his ilk.

Right now I think it's basically Jordan and Lebron for GOAT 1a and 1b. But to pass Jordan, Lebron is going to need another 5 years at around this level and a couple more championships. People forget that Jordan once averaged 33/8/8 on a .614 TS%. That's insane. It's also insane that Lebron this season has a chance to match that 88/89 season of Jordan with one of his own.

Never thought I'd see a player as good as Mike in our lifetime, Lebron is that good however.

@611 -- that's true, but the flip side is that the paint was often packed with a a couple of those "white stiffs" whose job it was to stand near the basket and be tall. With the advent of the "stretch 4" and the "euro style" there is more spacing in the modern game then when Jordan played. Furthermore, those "white stiffs" were often told to take hard fouls and enforce the "no fly zone" with Jordan and others.

As an aside, I'd much rather try to dunk on a 7'1" white stiff standing flat footed under the basket than some hyper athletic 6'9" guy coming at me from the side, but that's neither here nor there. I imagine we can all agree that Jordan and LeBron both would dunk on a lot of people whatever era they played in. I agree that to be counted as Jordan's equal LeBron needs another 5-6 years at this level and 2-3 more championships. I just think the notion that LeBron would be anything less than an absolute stud in the 80s is silly.

This may be reductive, but I took mj's remarks as your standard back in my day schtick with an extra helping of legacy protection.

Sure--that was actually more or less the subtext angle of the piece. Jordan turning 50, and James playing at a level such that people are starting to have the conversation. Jordan knows that, and based on what we know of Jordan, he is probably pissed off that he can't get out there and play against James. So he watches James and "studies" him.

As to the conversation, I am never all that comfortable with cross-era comps, for a variety of reasons, one being that I think players, even great ones, are products of their time in more ways than we think about. If Jordan had been born in 1983, rather than 1963, IMO the Jordan we would be watching today would be more ripped than the Jordan of 1993 and would adjust his game to the game of 2013. Same for an imaginary James born in 1964 rather than 1984. James is obviously playing at a peak that is right there with Jordan, but I also want to see what James does from ages 28-33.

If Jordan had been born in 1983, rather than 1963, IMO the Jordan we would be watching today would be more ripped than the Jordan of 1993 and would adjust his game to the game of 2013. Same for an imaginary James born in 1964 rather than 1984.

I agree, and I think that's an adjustment we all pretty much make in our heads (or at least I would hope). Jordan didn't spend his entire career as a skinny toothpick though, he bulked up pretty well in the 90s along with everybody else.

Looks like the guy that lost to Jordan was Kidd-Gilchrist. Honestly, that doesn't really shock me. Of course, I'm sure Jordan prepped for this game by studying him. And I think MKG was an awful #2 pick.

Jordan didn't spend his entire career as a skinny toothpick though, he bulked up pretty well in the 90s along with everybody else

.

Sure, but there have been advances in training etc, since then. Jordan had a personal trainer traveling with him late in his career, and he would be doing all kinds of extra stuff now, and an imaginary James playing in 1988 wouldn't have access to some of those advances. So, I think it is better, if people want to make these kinds of comps, to look at how the guy stacked up relative to the league he played in, the numbers he put up thereof, and other things, like versatility.

And, as I have said, I always like breaking the question down into scenarios, with each guy in his actual era:

If you could have either of them at age 20 to start a franchise, who would you take?
If you had a generic hypothetical 41-41 team, with an average player at each position, and you could replace one of those players with Jordan, 1989, or James, 2013, that is the only player move you can make barring injury, and if you don't get to at least the conference finals, you have to listen to me and Hombre debate Henry Abbott and Bill Simmons for two hours, who do you take?

But Voltaire and Thoreau? How does it make any sense to pair those two? They spoke different languages in different centuries and are not really known for tinkering as far as I can recall. I mean, Thoreau fiddled with his sentences, I guess, but...

Understatement of Trade Deadline Season, Respectable News Sites Division: "There are at least two significant impediments to a Howard-Rondo deal."

If you had a generic hypothetical 41-41 team, with an average player at each position, and you could replace one of those players with Jordan, 1989, or James, 2013, that is the only player move you can make barring injury, and if you don't get to at least the conference finals, you have to listen to me and Hombre debate Henry Abbott and Bill Simmons for two hours, who do you take?

One thing that's interesting in the LeBron/Jordan thing is that, in the theoretical matchup between the two, the two wouldn't actually match up. LeBron guards Pippen on that team most likely, and vice versa. DWade would be the guy following Jordan around. Pippen would probably match up pretty favorably on LeBron, those kind of guys seem to give him the most trouble.

If you had a generic hypothetical 41-41 team, with an average player at each position, and you could replace one of those players with Jordan, 1989, or James, 2013, that is the only player move you can make barring injury, and if you don't get to at least the conference finals, you have to listen to me and Hombre debate Henry Abbott and Bill Simmons for two hours, who do you take?

If it's Jordan, 1989, give me Lebron. He's more flexible on the defensive end, I can play different combinations of guys with him. Then again - Michael. Oh, man, real tough call. And god forbid my Lebron + average guys run into Jordan's team in the second round after I snubbed him :-)

By the way, as long as it was in person and not on the internet, I'd be highly entertained by the four of you debating. Two hours might be a bit much though.

Pippen would probably match up pretty favorably on LeBron, those kind of guys seem to give him the most trouble.

I know what you're getting at here, and you're right, I think, but my first reaction here was just to snark, "oh, really, that's who gives him trouble? All-time great defenders at his position?"

I know what you're getting at here, and you're right, I think, but my first reaction here was just to snark, "oh, really, that's who gives him trouble? All-time great defenders at his position?"

Me too. It'd be interesting to see of LeBron could take Pippen to the block. It'd be a fun matchup for sure. I could also see LeBron cross guarding Jordan, because Wade would be a little undersized there. It'd be awesome, for sure.

The Clippers had expressed reluctance to several teams about parting with Bledsoe until they were certain that Chris Paul would re-sign this summer to a long-term deal, sources said. The organization has become increasingly confident that Paul will stay, but every franchise decision is made within the context of how it will impact Paul, and how he feels about it.

Woj also says there are "differing factions within the Celtics and Clippers on the prudence of the deal," which makes sense. It's been very fun to watch Garnett and Pierce turn back the clock over the last eight games, so at the moment I wouldn't feel terrible about Ainge not doing this. But if it really is Bledsoe *and* Jordan, he probably should. And then he should really deal Pierce, too, who has said he doesn't want to stick around for a rebuilding period.

Although I wonder, which probably-not-gonna-happen deal would Celts fans rather do, Bledsoe/Jordan for KG, or Rondo for Howard... or, I suppose, both.

Maybe this is obvious, but I think the KG/Bledsoe/Jordan one is actually a real thing being discussed, while Rondo/Howard strikes me as something maybe assistant GM's batted around or something.

If the Clippers actually went for that, I would expect Rondo to get dealt in the offseason, in addition to Pierce getting dealt sooner than that. The Celtics would look different in a hurry.

Edit: Oh, and as for the purely hypothetical which I'd rather, Rondo/Howard would be a fun way to go for it one more time with Pierce/Garnett, which I almost kind of prefer at this point -- except, and this may sound stupid, I really, really don't like Howard, and wouldn't particularly look forward to rooting for him. Also I doubt he'd stay in Boston, so. Long-term, the KG deal almost certainly makes more sense.

I assume the majority of Celtics fans would get more exciting about trading an injured star for a less injured and even bigger star than trading an all-time great for two young guys who are pretty good, at least given the little burst of possibly false hope the last 8 games have provided.

Looks like the guy that lost to Jordan was Kidd-Gilchrist. Honestly, that doesn't really shock me. Of course, I'm sure Jordan prepped for this game by studying him. And I think MKG was an awful #2 pick.

Has there been a GOOD Bobcat pick in the Jordan era? it may be just me but it seem that if i just draw a name out of box fill with generally agreed upon top 10-20 guys I would have ended up with better results than Jordan's pick in the Bobcats no?

Looks like the guy that lost to Jordan was Kidd-Gilchrist. Honestly, that doesn't really shock me. Of course, I'm sure Jordan prepped for this game by studying him. And I think MKG was an awful #2 pick.

Really? Drummond clearly should have gone #2 and Lillard's been better than MKG so far, but he's also three years older and far from a sure thing to have a better career than MKG. If MKG was an awful #2 pick, then so would've been Beal and Barnes. Waiters and Thomas Robinson would've both been worse than awful.

Has Deandre Jordan become overrated? He makes a lot of money, for one thing, and though he's young, at 24 he's probably already into his prime. His FG% is high but he barely shoots. His minutes have actually gone down this year in part because I gather he doesn't close out games much (which, I gather, is partly because his free throw shooting is an abomination).

Am I missing something? Or is it that people think he could significantly improve over the next few years?

Has Deandre Jordan become overrated? He makes a lot of money, for one thing, and though he's young, at 24 he's probably already into his prime. His FG% is high but he barely shoots. His minutes have actually gone down this year in part because I gather he doesn't close out games much (which, I gather, is partly because his free throw shooting is an abomination).

Am I missing something? Or is it that people think he could significantly improve over the next few years?

Jordan is fine as he is, he rebounds, blocks shots and scores at a very high percentage. He's a good supporting player, about a league average starting center getting paid about the going rate for that when you consider his age and durability. His poor FT% shooting is probably part of why he doesn't play at the end of games, but I also think he gets singled too often by VDN for mistakes everyone on the team makes and it's not like Odom or Turiaf can make FTs or don't mistakes either.

I've heard the VDN is willing to trade Bledsoe/Jordan for Garnett, but front office isn't. I don't think VDN fully appreciates what Jordan and Bledsoe do, which is part of why he doesn't play either as much as he probably should. There is no reason not to give Bledsoe some minutes at SG over Willie Green and for Jordan's minutes to be down this year despite the dreck on the bench behind him. I don't think VDN really appreciates rebounders, team defenders or good all around players all that much. The Clippers are doing well despite VDN largely because Paul and Griffin are so good, not because anything VDN is doing.

I should make a longer comment, but the non-Payton NBA finalists just feel very borderline, and the men college coaches all have warts and there's the general mixing of all types of basketball.

I can't find my footing enough to say where the border is for the Basketball HOF. Bernard King was certainly a famous and feared player--the Jim Rice I'd guess of the bunch. Someone who might not deserve to get in but might anyway.

I would have guessed Maurice Cheeks was in already. But advanced stats don't love him. I don't know what that makes him. Steals and assists are important categories, not like batting average. Add that to being central to a genuinely great team? I'd vote him 2nd after Payton.

I wouldn't be in a rush to honor Hardaway or Richmond.

I assume Dawn Staley will be picked, no?

Coaches are hard; at some level Guy Lewis and Tarkanian and Pitino all obviously belong in the Hall of Fame.

Hardaway strikes me a slightly better pick than Richmond, both because Hardaway had more post TMC success (being the point guard for some good Heat teams) and because he's responsible for popularizing the crossover dribble.

Hardaway strikes me a slightly better pick than Richmond, both because Hardaway had more post TMC success (being the point guard for some good Heat teams) and because he's responsible for popularizing the crossover dribble.

In theory, if asked to compare the baseball and basketball Halls of Fame, I much prefer the more expansive and freewheeling definitions of the Basketball Hall. But the advantage the baseball Hall does have is that it's much easier to figure out who to vote for when the only question* is "value as a player on an American major league team." And the problem of too much subjectivity seems to have swamped the Basketball HOF, unfortunately.

I'm way too sentimental when it comes to my favorite players (Millsap is the longest tenured Jazzman and the last remnant of the 2007-2010 playoff teams), but I think I'd do this. Mainly cuz we desperately need a PG and we have two bigs coming off the bench that deserve more PT and could match Paul's production.

I think it would be a good deal for them in the short term. If they're going all out to win a championship now (and possibly convince CP3 to stay in the meantime), it makes sense. With Paul (and Billups, if he ever plays), Bledsoe isn't really crucial to their success.

The only times when putting Millsap next to Griffin could create a problem for the Clippers are when the opposing center is too good offensively for Blake to handle. How often will that happen? (honest question, I haven't seen him anchor the defense enough to judge)

The only times when putting Millsap next to Griffin could create a problem for the Clippers are when the opposing center is too good offensively for Blake to handle. How often will that happen? (honest question, I haven't seen him anchor the defense enough to judge)

The much bigger problem is interior help defense, Griffin is fine as a man to man defender and defends the pick and roll ok, but his arms are kind of short and he doesn't provide the presence in the paint that Garnett or DeAndre Jordan or even Lamar Odom or Turiaf do. Griffin blocks about half as many shots as Eric Bledsoe.

The only times when putting Millsap next to Griffin could create a problem for the Clippers are when the opposing center is too good offensively for Blake to handle. How often will that happen? (honest question, I haven't seen him anchor the defense enough to judge)

I don't know. A center's defense is much more being able to cover the entire team than playing Samuel Dalembert straight up. With Millsap and Griffin, you're not getting much of that.

I still don't hate the deal for them, since they have Crawford coming off the bench. But they really should have another guard if they make this trade. Bledsoe is a great trade chip - a guy on his rookie contract that's probably a better than average starter, is young, versatile, athletic, and has room for improvement as a result.

The much bigger problem is interior help defense, Griffin is fine as a man to man defender and defends the pick and roll ok, but his arms are kind of short and he doesn't provide the presence in the paint that Garnett or DeAndre Jordan or even Lamar Odom or Turiaf do. Griffin blocks about half as many shots as Eric Bledsoe.

I don't stay up to watch a ton of west coast games anymore but, to my occasional eye, Griffin has made a recognizable effort to become an acceptable defender. Given the year he missed plus Kelvin Sampson coaching him from fear, directing Griffin that staying out of foul trouble was a greater priority than playing good defense, he's on the right track. Not entirely dissimilar to Durant (though Durant has superior physical attributes for a defender than Griffin), who got similar coaching from Rick Barnes during his year at Texas but has turned himself into a good defensive player.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I miss Andrew Bynum. Dwight Howard is just a whiney #######, at least with Bynum he fit the team better, and knew he wasn't going to win against full on raging ####### Kobe and would acquiescence enough to not cause issues. Even if Bynum was also an immature punk.

Millsap might not be as valuable to many teams as Bledsoe, but he could very well be more valuable to the Clippers. They don't really need Bledsoe.

It seems like part of this is people talking about Billups. But he played very few minutes last year and basically none this year. So you're in a situation where you'd have no backup PG, and you're losing some other important guard minutes too. Bledsoe has played about 50% of the team's minutes, and with Jordan and Griffin in front of Millsap, I don't see Millsap's minutes being much different.

Without a doubt, just from a protecting the rim perspective (though there'd likely be some Millsap/Griffin front court minutes). What you could also argue is that he would take some of Odom's and Caron Butler's minutes. Which are pretty available minutes, as it goes. I just see the minutes only slightly increasing, and the level of play staying the same. And the contract is much worse. This is to say nothing bad about Millsap. He's a good player, one of my favorite players, and he doesn't have a bad contract. I'd just want some sort of guard to get back in this deal - Bledsoe is a pretty valuable chip. Again, just my opinion but I don't buy the idea that Bledsoe isn't really valuable for the Clippers.

Would this even be a doable deal, or would someone else have to be in it? I don't know who has trade exceptions, but the salaries don't seem to match.

As much as I love Millsap, I would do this deal from the Jazz' perspective. However, doesn't a deal centered around Jefferson for Bledsoe make much more sense for the Clippers? We've already talked about VDN not trusting Jordan late in games, so I'm sure he wouldn't mind having Jefferson at C, and I don't think Jordan would even have to lose many minutes since Jefferson could take almost all of Turiaf, Hollins, and Odom's minutes.

Millsap might not be as valuable to many teams as Bledsoe, but he could very well be more valuable to the Clippers. They don't really need Bledsoe.

They probably need Millsap even less, especially if he's being brought in as a backup, if they want someone to be a star backup player it might as well be Bledsoe and keep whatever other rotation player would need to be included to make the trade work as well. It's not like Bledsoe isn't playing, his production is very important to them this year, he's a big reason they are the best team in the league at forcing turnovers and their defense is much better this year, even if VDN is too dense not play him more (Bledsoe has a 25 PER at SG this year, that is a little better than Willie Green).

Millsap's contract is expiring as well and with Griffin's extension starting next year, if Millsap wants a raise it could cause some ugly cap/tax issues.

As much as I love Millsap, I would do this deal from the Jazz' perspective. However, doesn't a deal centered around Jefferson for Bledsoe make much more sense for the Clippers? We've already talked about VDN not trusting Jordan late in games, so I'm sure he wouldn't mind having Jefferson at C, and I don't think Jordan would even have to lose many minutes since Jefferson could take almost all of Turiaf, Hollins, and Odom's minutes.

I'm sure VDN would like it, but I think the Clippers front office values Bledsoe more than VDN. Jefferson is another guy who doesn't fit with Griffin, probably even more than Millsap. He's bigger, but still a weak defender and he's a much less efficient scorer than Griffin that needs to take a ton of shots and space close the basket, that would be better given to Griffin. Jefferson would also require multiple other players to be included to match salaries and he's also expiring which could be an issue.

Bledsoe is good for how little he is paid, even if he's only playing 20 minutes, he's still a great value this year and next,so it doesn't make sense to trade him unless it's for someone like Garnett who is an obvious upgrade to one of their starters. He'd be even more valuable with a better coach.

It's hard to see the Clippers picking up somebody who's obviously useful for them for Bledsoe. Maybe Paul George (but I don't know why the Pacers would make that trade.) Maybe a random Dallas Maverick (but I'm not sure which one.)

Honestly, thinking about it, I see the logic behind a Garnett pickup (and Paul Pierce wouldn't be a bad fit for them either), but obviously that ship has mostly flown.

I'm sure VDN would like it, but I think the Clippers front office values Bledsoe more than VDN. Jefferson is another guy who doesn't fit with Griffin, probably even more than Millsap. He's bigger, but still a weak defender and he's a much less efficient scorer than Griffin that needs to take a ton of shots and space close the basket, that would be better given to Griffin. Jefferson would also require multiple other players to be included to match salaries and he's also expiring which could be an issue.

I disagree that he's a worse fit for Griffin/Clippers than Millsap. Jefferson has actually developed a good mid-range/long 2 jump shot (42%, which is above average, on 5.6FGA compared to 33% on 2.8FGA for Millsap). He shoots more often from 3-9 feet than Millsap (3.5FGAA to 1.9FGA) but a bit less at the basket. Deandre Jordan, FWIW, shoots about 75% of his shots from within 3 feet of the basket. If Griffin can thrive with him, he should be even better off with Jefferson. Furthermore, Jefferson, if he is allowed to go one on one in the post, is a beast. On a team with Griffin and Paul, teams won't be able to double Jefferson often, otherwise Griffin and the Clippers' shooters will destroy them.

I also think that Griffin and Jefferson both playing in position will be stronger defensively than Millsap and Griffin, since Paul would either be at the 3 or Griffin would be at the 5. That's not saying much, but again, this all assumes the Clippers are interested in Millsap for Bledsoe.

But now that I say all this, your point about salary is right on. I thought he and Millsap were much closer together in salary, but Jefferson makes $15M and Millsap only $8.6M. Even throwing in Odom and the Clippers' trade exceptions with Bledsoe, the Clippers would still have to shed another $2.5M.

How about a 3-team deal where the Clippers get Gortat and Dudley, the Jazz get Bledsoe, Butler, and Jermaine O'Neal, and the Suns get Al Jefferson and Alec Burks?

Gortat would split time with Jordan and finish games, while Dudley's a younger, cheaper, and better version of Butler. Utah's upgrade to Bledsoe at pg is much larger than the downgrade from Jefferson to extended minutes for Favors and Kanter plus O'Neal, and they'd also save money this year (even if the Clippers sent them Willie Green to stay under the tax). The Suns would blow up a bad team by adding talent and getting younger. If they can't re-sign Jefferson, they'd have cap room available for someone else. Also, since the Jazz have an extra 1st round pick from the Warriors, they could send it over to Phoenix to sweeten the deal in exchange for a couple of the Suns' three 2nd rounders.

I probably think as much of Memphis's chances in the playoffs as anybody does, but I'll admit I'll be pretty surprised if they win the East.

hater.

if you were a true diehard fan like i am, you'd believe in your team regardless of those pesky little things like whether they actually play a given sport, or are in a given league, or have a certain set of genitalia. as far as i'm concerned, the sixers are overwhelming favorites to win the daytona 500, the stanley cup, the kentucky derby, the CBA, the KHL, the XFL, the WNBA and the hollywood upstairs medical college's intramural modern pentathalon (though, incidentally, i still think they'd be 3:1 underdogs against john cena at wrestlemania).

Probably thhe Pacers because Granger's contract is kind of ugly and health track record isn't great and the Pacers seem to be doing fine without him.

The Clippers I'm sure would like to a get a guy like Granger for Bledsoe, but some many good but great wings have outrageous contracts these days (guys like Granger, Gay, Iguodala).

I disagree that he's a worse fit for Griffin/Clippers than Millsap. Jefferson has actually developed a good mid-range/long 2 jump shot (42%, which is above average, on 5.6FGA compared to 33% on 2.8FGA for Millsap). He shoots more often from 3-9 feet than Millsap (3.5FGAA to 1.9FGA) but a bit less at the basket. Deandre Jordan, FWIW, shoots about 75% of his shots from within 3 feet of the basket. If Griffin can thrive with him, he should be even better off with Jefferson. Furthermore, Jefferson, if he is allowed to go one on one in the post, is a beast. On a team with Griffin and Paul, teams won't be able to double Jefferson often, otherwise Griffin and the Clippers' shooters will destroy them.

I just don't see the Clippers as needing a high volume, low efficiency scorer. Griffin has a TS% of .574 with a higher usage than Jefferson, Jefferson is only at 52%, almost any play run for Jefferson would be better run for Griffin. Even Jamal Crawford can chuck shots more efficiently than Jefferson if they need a scorer when Griffin isn't playing. If Jefferson was as good an offensive rebounder as he is a defensive rebounder he'd more interesting, but as is, he's a worse offensive rebounder than Millsap and much worse than Jordan. He may be better for the Clipper than Millsap, but not when his contract is considered, but neither would probably help the Clipper too much, when you consider what they would need to give up. If Hayward came in the deal with Millsap, it would be a little more interesting though.